Today, after not
receiving any notice from the court as to Judge Noel L. Hillmans decision on
the recusal motion, nor seeing any opinion or memorandum posted on the
internet, as evidenced by the lack of justia.com having updated its record on
the case, I will assume that Judge Hillman has chosen not to react as quickly
as he did in setting the hearing date of 2/21/2012.

My main goal for
this posting is to bring you one last "Condemnation of the Cohorts"
as the following case law will show. The
Supreme Court of the United States, within Scott v. Harris 127 S.Ct. 1769 (2007), at 1776 stated:

"At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a
"genuine" dispute as to those facts. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). As
we have emphasized, "[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under
Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken as a
whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party,
there is no `genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (footnote omitted). "[T]he mere existence
of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat
an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is
that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When opposing parties tell two different stories,
one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no
reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."

Judge Noel L.
Hillman has ignored the above case law as his Sept. 27,2010 opinion substantiates. One
have further interest in a greater understanding of the law will note that in
the above case of Scott v. Harris, the court cites that there was a video tape,
which revealed and clarified the facts of the case and further showed that the
lower court should not have just accepted the plaintiff's version of the facts.

You might be
thinking "I thought this (Gaming Oracle) guy was the plaintiff, so why
would he point out case law going against the plaintiff?"If you are thinking like that, you are
falling prey to the line of thinking that "Liars for Hire" and
(JSHIT) practitioners want you to have.The above case law points out the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman should
have utilized the exhibits attached to the complaint pursuant to FRCVP 10 (c),
and he should not have written an opinion devoid of one reference to said
attached exhibits, as that act certifies his and his cohorts condemnation as
unethical judicial officers.

With the above
stated I now rejoin you in awaiting Judge Noel L. Hillmans notice that he will
step aside so that justice may be done.With that being his only option as the facts and documents support, I
will proceed in sharing the facts that were presented to the court as part of
the summary judgment motions filed. Prepare yourselves, just because we will be
moving on from Judge Hillman, you will be introduced to the "Liars for
Hire."

Thank You, for all
your views and support, please tell another friend or two.